6 ms·

One example: people who simply state “women make 82 cents for every dollar a man makes” to imply the advantage of being a man vs a woman. The reality of how th

One example: people who simply state “women make 82 cents for every dollar a man makes” to imply the advantage of being a man vs a woman. The reality of how this number is calculated (eg averages across professions, even though men and women tend to work different professions, part time vs full time is not taken into account) suggests the conclusions that come from this 82 cents number is more nuanced than the initial statement.

Ma8ee 5y ago
And then you can take another step and ask why professions dominated by women in general are less well paid than similar ones dominated by men, and why it is mostly women who reduce their work hours while the kids are small and why not more men do the same.
- xdennis 5y ago
  Because the jobs are less valuable, not due to who's doing them but due to the market (i.e. all of us) seeing them as less valuable. Teachers and nannies aren't paid a whole lot because they're easily replaceable, not because they're jobs dominated by women. Doctors used to be exclusively men. Have salaries gone down now that women make up a significant percent of the number of doctors?
  - Ma8ee 5y ago
    > Because the jobs are less valuable, not due to who's doing them but due to the market (i.e. all of us) seeing them as less valuable. It is a rather sad and naive view of the value of work if you think that it is decided by market value. My work as a developer has a high market value because what I do is generating revenue for my employer. The work of the teacher who shapes the future of our children or the work of nurse that take care of our dying parents don't generate any revenue, and thus has a lower market value, but I, and I think we as a society should, value it much more. Good teachers and good nannies aren't easier to replace than good carpenters or construction workers. But since many men who are in charge of setting salaries don't understand that they aren't as well paid. > Have salaries gone down now that women make up a significant percent of the number of doctors? Yes. I don't have the time to dig up the sources right now, and I don't remember seeing it specifically about doctors, but in many lines of work the relative salaries have gone down when traditionally male professions have been taken over more and more by women.
    - kareemm 5y ago
      > Good teachers and good nannies aren't easier to replace than good carpenters or construction workers. But since many men who are in charge of setting salaries don't understand that they aren't as well paid. I'm not sure teachers and nannies are good examples. Public school teachers are largely unionized which would eliminate differences in pay between men and women. And many nannies are effectively small business people who set their own rates.
      - the-alt-one 5y ago
        >Public school teachers are largely unionized which would eliminate differences in pay between men and women. No, it wouldn't. Why would it?
        kareemm 5y ago
        Maybe I misunderstand how unions work but my understanding is that unionized pay is based on experience levels and not gender.
        the-alt-one 5y ago
        Being unionized doesn't mean that pay is non-negotiable or anything of the sort. Yes, the union typically establishes a baseline pay based on experience, but individuals can still negotiate their own wages.
    - rajin444 5y ago
      > The work of the teacher who shapes the future of our children or the work of nurse that take care of our dying parents don't generate any revenue, and thus has a lower market value, but I, and I think we as a society should, value it much more. Teachers are glorified babysitters in the vast majority of instances due to many countries making truancy illegal. Yes, a great teacher is extremely valuable, but the vast majority of teachers are not great because there is not a high demand for great teachers. It’s even worse that we’re ruining the environment for both great teachers and great students by forcing students who have no interest in learning to be there.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > Teachers and nannies aren't paid a whole lot because they're easily replaceable I don't know any nannies, but it's not true that teachers are easily replaceable. Not good ones, anyway. Good teachers need to show these skills: * Classroom management (possibly in classes with disturbed kids) * Curriculum knowledge (requires regular training) * Social work skills * Child psychology * Understanding of various learning impediments The fact that teachers are cheap is not evidence that they're easily replaced.
    - nec4b 5y ago
      Unfortunately we don't hire only good teachers.
      - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
        Even bad teachers have to meet the standards, which are usually set by law. A preschool teacher, who often gets paid just over minimum wage, usually requires a 2 year degree (for head start-like programs). A teacher? 4 year degree, with a preference for a masters and in many places, absolutely no pay during the summer months. It isn't like any other industry hires only "good" people, though, so calling out teaching for that - especially if your area has a shortage - seems a bit unfair.
        Jensson 5y ago
        But those standards doesn't mean anything if they are still bad teachers. Would you hire a software engineer with a 4 year degree who can't code? No, of course not. But would you hire a teacher with a 4 year degree who can't teach? Of course you would! You just need them to tick a box, their skill as a teacher isn't relevant, if they have a piece of paper they meet the bar and are hired.
        denton-scratch 5y ago
        > Of course you would! I suspect that perhaps you are not a teacher, and have never applied for teaching work. Or maybe you live somewhere where school hiring practices are very irresponsible. My daughter is a teacher who has just changed jobs. The process was something like this: * Apply (CV, plus extensive covering letter) * Prospective new head knows old head (they all know one another) so they talk * Candidate gets an interview, and has to prepare a class * Interview day: candidate delivers prepared class, observed by head and head-of-year * Candidate is interviewed at length by a panel of three teachers, including head * Decision made subject to references * References taken up; award position What you've described is a process that isn't even appropriate for a supermarket checkout clerk.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    The jobs are viewed less valuable once women start working them. As in, a profession that was male-dominated starts paying less once it becomes the opposite [1}. It isn't really fair to use doctors as and example since it is still a male-dominated profession, with over 60% being male [2]. I'd also mention that obviously, teachers aren't that easily replaced, considering the shortage that has only gotten worse during covid [3]. A lot of states in the US will basically let anyone be a substitute: I know of at least one person that is teaching high school without a teaching license, but they might be technically a long-term substitute. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over... [2] https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/nation-s-physician-workforce-evolves-more-women-bit-older-and-toward-different-specialties#:~:text=Women's%20steady%20rise,2007%20%E2%80%94%2028.3%25 https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/nation-s-physician-workfo... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59687947 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59687947
    - flavius29663 5y ago
      Are doctors being paid less? Isn't this about supply and demand? If you flood the market with women that used to be housewives, the salaries will go down. But high demans fields stay highly paid, even increase.
      - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
        Obviously, the job market doesn't respond to demand in that way. Otherwise, more places would be paying more right now with the current shortages. Teachers, for example, should be getting raises. I was responding to the fact that doctors aren't female-dominated right now, a point you missed. Which they aren't. We haven't flooded it with a bunch of women: We have a limited capacity to train doctors. Nor are we getting folks in the market that used to be housewives: That time period has long since moved, though in many places, women still carry household responsibilities in addition to work. Rather than a flood, women are replacing men, mostly. Which is generally how it goes: Women replace men in some fields, and then pay goes down.
    - chasd00 5y ago
  - geraneum 5y ago
    Being paid less doesn’t necessarily mean your job is less “valuable”! I wish this was the case and everyone would get paid based value of their work but, sadly, this isn’t the reality of the world we live in.
- drran 5y ago
  > why it is mostly women who reduce their work hours while the kids are small and why not more men do the same. Because evolution did this decision for us. Woman stays with children, while man risk their lives, because those, which did the opposite, lose evolutionary competition.
  - Ma8ee 5y ago
    No, it didn’t. You may choose to follow old traditions that don’t make sense any more, but that is something you choose. There are very few jobs today where physical strength make a difference, and before the industrial revolution the fathers were mostly at home and played important parts in raising the children.
    - drran 5y ago
      If you look at birth and death rates, you will see that more boys are born, but mortality for boys is higher[0]. Moreover, you will see same numbers as for salary difference. Natural selection did not stop that, so it's beneficial for society somehow. [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/infant-death-rates-by-cause-by-sex https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/infant-death-rates-by-cau...
      - andrekandre 5y ago
        so is the point that difference of salary of men vs women is because of natural selection?
      - Ma8ee 5y ago
        Your link says that infant mortality rate is slightly higher for boys. How is that supposed to help your argument? > Moreover, you will see same numbers as for salary difference. Is your argument that since there seem to be a correlation between mortality rate for boys and higher salary for men, that there is some kind of causation that make it good? You really have to expand on that if you want to make it comprehensible. > Natural selection did not stop that, so it's beneficial for society somehow. Here you reveal that you don't understand natural selection. Natural selection doesn't select for what is beneficial for society at all. Often what is good for the gene is bad for society, and the other way around. Natural selection works on time scale much longer than the industrial revolution, and most factors are probably older than agriculture. It would be rather stupid to let what was useful behaviour 100k years ago control our lives today. We live in very different environments, in very different societies, and faces very different dangers.
prometheus76 5y ago
Overtime is also not taken into account in those calculations. Men tend to work more overtime than women.
- _0ffh 5y ago
  Men in general value money and status more highly and therefore sacrifice more in their pursuit. An observer who concentrates solely on the monetary outcome sees only half of the picture.

Ma8ee 5y ago

And then you can take another step and ask why professions dominated by women in general are less well paid than similar ones dominated by men, and why it is mostly women who reduce their work hours while the kids are small and why not more men do the same.

xdennis 5y ago
Because the jobs are less valuable, not due to who's doing them but due to the market (i.e. all of us) seeing them as less valuable. Teachers and nannies aren't paid a whole lot because they're easily replaceable, not because they're jobs dominated by women. Doctors used to be exclusively men. Have salaries gone down now that women make up a significant percent of the number of doctors?
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  > Because the jobs are less valuable, not due to who's doing them but due to the market (i.e. all of us) seeing them as less valuable. It is a rather sad and naive view of the value of work if you think that it is decided by market value. My work as a developer has a high market value because what I do is generating revenue for my employer. The work of the teacher who shapes the future of our children or the work of nurse that take care of our dying parents don't generate any revenue, and thus has a lower market value, but I, and I think we as a society should, value it much more. Good teachers and good nannies aren't easier to replace than good carpenters or construction workers. But since many men who are in charge of setting salaries don't understand that they aren't as well paid. > Have salaries gone down now that women make up a significant percent of the number of doctors? Yes. I don't have the time to dig up the sources right now, and I don't remember seeing it specifically about doctors, but in many lines of work the relative salaries have gone down when traditionally male professions have been taken over more and more by women.
  - kareemm 5y ago
    > Good teachers and good nannies aren't easier to replace than good carpenters or construction workers. But since many men who are in charge of setting salaries don't understand that they aren't as well paid. I'm not sure teachers and nannies are good examples. Public school teachers are largely unionized which would eliminate differences in pay between men and women. And many nannies are effectively small business people who set their own rates.
    - the-alt-one 5y ago
      >Public school teachers are largely unionized which would eliminate differences in pay between men and women. No, it wouldn't. Why would it?
      - kareemm 5y ago
        Maybe I misunderstand how unions work but my understanding is that unionized pay is based on experience levels and not gender.
        the-alt-one 5y ago
        Being unionized doesn't mean that pay is non-negotiable or anything of the sort. Yes, the union typically establishes a baseline pay based on experience, but individuals can still negotiate their own wages.
  - rajin444 5y ago
    > The work of the teacher who shapes the future of our children or the work of nurse that take care of our dying parents don't generate any revenue, and thus has a lower market value, but I, and I think we as a society should, value it much more. Teachers are glorified babysitters in the vast majority of instances due to many countries making truancy illegal. Yes, a great teacher is extremely valuable, but the vast majority of teachers are not great because there is not a high demand for great teachers. It’s even worse that we’re ruining the environment for both great teachers and great students by forcing students who have no interest in learning to be there.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > Teachers and nannies aren't paid a whole lot because they're easily replaceable I don't know any nannies, but it's not true that teachers are easily replaceable. Not good ones, anyway. Good teachers need to show these skills: * Classroom management (possibly in classes with disturbed kids) * Curriculum knowledge (requires regular training) * Social work skills * Child psychology * Understanding of various learning impediments The fact that teachers are cheap is not evidence that they're easily replaced.
  - nec4b 5y ago
    Unfortunately we don't hire only good teachers.
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      Even bad teachers have to meet the standards, which are usually set by law. A preschool teacher, who often gets paid just over minimum wage, usually requires a 2 year degree (for head start-like programs). A teacher? 4 year degree, with a preference for a masters and in many places, absolutely no pay during the summer months. It isn't like any other industry hires only "good" people, though, so calling out teaching for that - especially if your area has a shortage - seems a bit unfair.
      - Jensson 5y ago
        But those standards doesn't mean anything if they are still bad teachers. Would you hire a software engineer with a 4 year degree who can't code? No, of course not. But would you hire a teacher with a 4 year degree who can't teach? Of course you would! You just need them to tick a box, their skill as a teacher isn't relevant, if they have a piece of paper they meet the bar and are hired.
        denton-scratch 5y ago
        > Of course you would! I suspect that perhaps you are not a teacher, and have never applied for teaching work. Or maybe you live somewhere where school hiring practices are very irresponsible. My daughter is a teacher who has just changed jobs. The process was something like this: * Apply (CV, plus extensive covering letter) * Prospective new head knows old head (they all know one another) so they talk * Candidate gets an interview, and has to prepare a class * Interview day: candidate delivers prepared class, observed by head and head-of-year * Candidate is interviewed at length by a panel of three teachers, including head * Decision made subject to references * References taken up; award position What you've described is a process that isn't even appropriate for a supermarket checkout clerk.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  The jobs are viewed less valuable once women start working them. As in, a profession that was male-dominated starts paying less once it becomes the opposite [1}. It isn't really fair to use doctors as and example since it is still a male-dominated profession, with over 60% being male [2]. I'd also mention that obviously, teachers aren't that easily replaced, considering the shortage that has only gotten worse during covid [3]. A lot of states in the US will basically let anyone be a substitute: I know of at least one person that is teaching high school without a teaching license, but they might be technically a long-term substitute. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over... [2] https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/nation-s-physician-workforce-evolves-more-women-bit-older-and-toward-different-specialties#:~:text=Women's%20steady%20rise,2007%20%E2%80%94%2028.3%25 https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/nation-s-physician-workfo... [3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59687947 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59687947
  - flavius29663 5y ago
    Are doctors being paid less? Isn't this about supply and demand? If you flood the market with women that used to be housewives, the salaries will go down. But high demans fields stay highly paid, even increase.
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      Obviously, the job market doesn't respond to demand in that way. Otherwise, more places would be paying more right now with the current shortages. Teachers, for example, should be getting raises. I was responding to the fact that doctors aren't female-dominated right now, a point you missed. Which they aren't. We haven't flooded it with a bunch of women: We have a limited capacity to train doctors. Nor are we getting folks in the market that used to be housewives: That time period has long since moved, though in many places, women still carry household responsibilities in addition to work. Rather than a flood, women are replacing men, mostly. Which is generally how it goes: Women replace men in some fields, and then pay goes down.
  - chasd00 5y ago
- geraneum 5y ago
  Being paid less doesn’t necessarily mean your job is less “valuable”! I wish this was the case and everyone would get paid based value of their work but, sadly, this isn’t the reality of the world we live in.
drran 5y ago
> why it is mostly women who reduce their work hours while the kids are small and why not more men do the same. Because evolution did this decision for us. Woman stays with children, while man risk their lives, because those, which did the opposite, lose evolutionary competition.
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  No, it didn’t. You may choose to follow old traditions that don’t make sense any more, but that is something you choose. There are very few jobs today where physical strength make a difference, and before the industrial revolution the fathers were mostly at home and played important parts in raising the children.
  - drran 5y ago
    If you look at birth and death rates, you will see that more boys are born, but mortality for boys is higher[0]. Moreover, you will see same numbers as for salary difference. Natural selection did not stop that, so it's beneficial for society somehow. [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/infant-death-rates-by-cause-by-sex https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/infant-death-rates-by-cau...
    - andrekandre 5y ago
      so is the point that difference of salary of men vs women is because of natural selection?
    - Ma8ee 5y ago
      Your link says that infant mortality rate is slightly higher for boys. How is that supposed to help your argument? > Moreover, you will see same numbers as for salary difference. Is your argument that since there seem to be a correlation between mortality rate for boys and higher salary for men, that there is some kind of causation that make it good? You really have to expand on that if you want to make it comprehensible. > Natural selection did not stop that, so it's beneficial for society somehow. Here you reveal that you don't understand natural selection. Natural selection doesn't select for what is beneficial for society at all. Often what is good for the gene is bad for society, and the other way around. Natural selection works on time scale much longer than the industrial revolution, and most factors are probably older than agriculture. It would be rather stupid to let what was useful behaviour 100k years ago control our lives today. We live in very different environments, in very different societies, and faces very different dangers.

prometheus76 5y ago

Overtime is also not taken into account in those calculations. Men tend to work more overtime than women.

_0ffh 5y ago
Men in general value money and status more highly and therefore sacrifice more in their pursuit. An observer who concentrates solely on the monetary outcome sees only half of the picture.